Talk:New Republic Marine Corps
Does the Marine Enlisted Ranks graphic have to be there? It seems directly pulled from RL, rather than keeping the look-n-feel of Star Wars. Also, where are the pictures of the helmet and body armor from? Besides copyright issues, why not show the equipment from the Endor infiltration? - Lolkje :Well, for one thing, there aren't any established enlisted rank insignia for the Alliance/NR ground troops, largely because we very rarely see ground troops onscreen where rank tabs are visible. That leaves us with a gap to cover, and while I'm not AGAINST designing more thematic insignia, that would take time that personally, I'd rather devote to more important tasks, unless the GroundOps people want it done in a significant number. If they're happy with it, I am too, at the moment. For that matter, our existing officer ranks in all branches aren't terribly thematic, either, but noone seems to mind. As far as the Endor infiltration goes, that was gear used a) by the financially-more-strapped Rebel Alliance, and b) for very specific tasks by an elite commando team. It's not something you'd consider standard battle dress, by any means, and even if the movies *had* shown a standard ground troop battle dress, we assume that by the present day, the NR has probably changed and upgraded their choice in what to send their troops into battle with. That said, it was really chosen due to a)similarity to what we have described in the game as being standard Marine battle Dress, and b)a general liking for it among the GroundOps players, or at least a lack of complaint about it. In short, I'm inclined to consider those two details minor items that will be changed if/when needed, and suitable enough at the present while we've still got a lot of more pressing things to deal with. That said, next time I re-watch the films, I may change my mind and talk about this with the guys. - Wrista :I would rather not see any enlisted insignia at all if we can't come up with something that is Star Wars friendly. Besides, the NR Marine Corps to me seems WAY TOO MUCH like RL military, and there are a number of things I've noticed that are blatent rips from RL military, rather than researching and involving SW technologies. I may rant more about that in the future... and I understand that Vengan is in the military IRL which is where he gets a lot of this stuff... but I feel like it almost might be a detriment to the branch sometimes. It almost seems like if you don't completely grasp RL military things, then you can't understand the NR Marines, and that to me is a problem. - Luke ::I think this comes down to whether or not this information is accurate for the MUSH, and whether or not it was established by an authoritative source. I personally agree -- from what I've read the NR Marines seem less and less Star Wars-y. Of course, if that's the way things are on the MUSH... The SW1ki serves as a resource / record of the MUSH. If that's truly the way things are done on the MUSH, then fine. Personally, I think most everything related to Caspar is very un-Star Wars-y, but it's not up to me. On the other hand, if you're inventing things on the SW1ki, that could be open to some debate. See Also the latest forum discussion. -- Xerxes 14:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ::I'm not entirely sure what Xerxes means by 'un-Star Wars-y' (and given one of his examples, I'm sure we'll vigorously disagree), but Luke probably has a point. Stuff that's INSPIRED by RL is one thing, and potentially enhances. Hell, most of the uniforms of the Empire were inspired by historical German uniforms in some form. The visual appearance of most if not all blaster weapons in the original trilogy were inspired by RL weapons (and indeed, a sharp eye can recognize Sterling submachineguns, Mauser pistols, MG-38 general purpose machine guns, Lewis guns, .22 cal target pistols, Stgw 44 assault rifles, all with often superficial visual modifications). But there is a point where it becomes too blatant. Using chevrons as a basis rank insignia in and of itself probably wouldn't be crossing the line, since they're a pretty generic indication of rank, going back rather far into history. Using exact copies of the USMC rank isignia, on the other hand... well, I wouldn't do it. --Mahon 02:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC) ::If the phrase "un-Star Wars-y" had any viracity, then most of Episode III would fall under that. Most of the units were modelled after WWII and modern military units (501st Legion, etc.). The Galactic Marines were, in fact, nearly a direct lift from modern Iraq-Afghanistan Conflict Marine activity. The planet Felucia is not named so by accident -- it is a direct projection from the hostile city of Fallujah. And so on, and so forth. And the writers / sources involved in Episode III's creation have stated these instances are not coincidence. I may sound petty, but I think the CSA's current state of affairs is very "un-Star Wars-y", with a company that acts like Wal-Mart, that is dominated by a species who, by all canon background and EU trends, has no means or connection with the CSA (since they're on opposite sides of the galaxy), and circulates announcements for picnics, circuses, and lekku-stroking festivals. ::But hey... it's not up to me. I just write what I know, and am connected to/with. -- Hawke / Rtufo 05:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC) ::: MY point is that un-Star Wars-y isn't the issue (at least not the one I'm concerned about). There are two questions that need to be answered: 1. Is this information an accurate representation of the MUSH, or, in other words, is the contributor just documenting the way things are on the MUSH? 2. If not and this is new background content "invented" for the SW1ki (and thus a new constraint on the MUSH), does the contributor have the authority to decide that this is the way things are? The MUSH has an RPA board for a reason. People can't claim just anything they want because it impacts everyone else. We're not a fanfic site. Wikipedia has a policy against Original Research for a similar reason, information must come from reliable sources. To be a trusted and useful resource, a wiki needs to be verifiable and grounded in fact. In our case, that reliable source is the MUSH. The SW1ki should ultimately be about accurately recording the MUSH. Information needs to flow from the MUSH to the SW1ki, not the other way. . -- Xerxes 12:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC) ::::BTW, yes Hawke, that sounded petty. :) -- Xerxes 12:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC) :::::That's okay Xerxes. You sounded petty too. :) Hawke just needs to learn to punctuate his comments with :)'s because that makes it okay. :) :) :) As to your POINT (which didn't make it into the original statement), yes that's a perfectly valid concern. Bringing this whole discussion in line with your point, I'm afraid I'm going to have to back Vengan and Twila on this one. In this particular instance, it's almost moot as to wether or not this material has flowed Wiki->SW1 or the other way. These do appear to be the folks RUNNING the NR Marines, so operational details would be well within their lattitude. Wether they're documenting the way their entity is or using SW1 to propagate changes is effectively the same thing in this particular case. They're not creating a past incident where they peed in Vader's boots. They are documenting how they intend to do things, or have done things, and really the only folks who ought to over-ruling them on THAT front (and only if THEY think it's necessary) are NR Admin. Some things written might be a tad uncreative, and we can certainly suggest ways to improve it, but I'm afraid it's within their right to create this content, and the wiki moderators/admin/whatever are basically limited to editing for policy compliance, spelling, formatting and grammatical attrocities. --Mahon 19:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC) :) Found this site: STAR WARS: Rebel Alliance Insignia. Of course, there's no requirement that the SW1 New Republic abide by this, but it looks like interesting source info. And, it might be considered more Star Wars-y than the chevrons. -- Xerxes 14:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC) *Those are just officer ranks. Like I mentioned somewhere (maybe on the forums), there have never been enlisted ranks depicted in any SW medium for the Empire or the NR (although I do believe some Stormtrooper NCOs had some shoulder patches colored differently). So it leaves a lot of room for original content to be included by us to create our own system of insigna for the enlistedmen. --74.68.17.86 18:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC) **Actually... read far enough and there is a section that suggests that the insignia beginning with grey squares were enlisted ranks. Granted, given the nature of the Rebellion, there's a distinct possibility that these insignia were not in use universally (though it does seem likely that the insignia used by the troops closest to the core cadre would be the ones carrying over to the New Republic). The technical commentaries claim that this scheme allows for 16 possible enlisted ranks (though I personally consider it doubtful they'd all have been used). -- Mahon 20:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC) New Weapons I've added in several new weapons for the Marines, including heavy blasters, sharpshooter weapons, missile launchers, a grenade launcher, and grenades. These are all canon devices and were pulled from canon sources and the Wookiepedia. - Vengan Ranks Hey Hawke, I'm not so sure I'm wild about moving all the ranks onto their own pages. I kind of like having them all in one spot so they can be looked at all at one go, rather than confusing folks by redirecting them. -V * The creation and existence of sub-pages is nothing new to Wikis, encyclopedias, or the Internet in general. Rather than having a page that scrolls on... and on... and on, it works best, for both editors and readership, to have sub-pages (or branch pages). It's actually more difficult and confusing to have definitions/explanations of the ranks on organization pages, and force readers to chase from one organization page after another to see why a Captain in the NR is different than a Captain in the Empire. It makes more sense to understanding and structure in the manner we're doing it here. And, your project coordinator (for the NR) has directed this on the NR's project page. -- Hawke / Rtufo 05:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC) ** When did we invent this Project Coordinator title and invest it with any kind of authority? -- Xerxes 12:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC) ** See ''Template talk:User projcoord'' for further discusssion. -- Hawke / Rtufo 15:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Length of Service Sanity check. In many of the NCO ranks, you refer to the length of service that it typically takes to earn a certain rank, Sergeant Major in 20 years, etc. Let's think about this for a second. The NR Marines haven't been around for 20 years. The New Republic itself is only about 10 years old at this point in the timeline. -- Xerxes 14:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC) ::Inclined to agree. The length of service guidelines seem to be based on RL USMC peacetime figures. In RL incidences of major warfare (eg WWI, WWII, Vietnam) they do tend to go out the window... and they probably didn't apply at all back in 1785 when the USMC was only 10 years old. --Mahon 19:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC) They could refer to time in service in the Alliance Marine Corps as well. I believe they do exist in the WEG Rebel Sourcebook, which should probably serve as the base line for the NRMC as well.I agree that using the scarlet and gold chevrons of the USMC is probably a little offbase, if it is only serving as a temporary solution till they have time to revist it, I don't see it being a huge problem. --ImperialFH 14:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) ::Good point, and I found myself mulling that in the back of my head yesterday. But in practice, wartime still isn't going to generate that many twenty year veterans, even considering that one isn't going to need very many Sergeants Major. -- Mahon 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC) I assume that the length of service qualifications go out the window for PCs. Characters can rise from private to Gunnery Sergeant in less than 10 years on the MUSH, right? It seems to me that there are as many exceptions as explanations. I support removing the length of service descriptors. -- Xerxes 20:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC) *This is all rather pointless. PCs rise through the ranks exponentially faster than real-life counterparts, and NPCs. A dedicated, active and involved player can easily reach the Admiralty in one of the major factions in just a year or two. Not sure how it works in the CDU or any other groups. IC and reality just has to be stretched to accomodate player development. Wouldn't be very fun if every player was an Ensign in the Navy. --74.68.17.86 20:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) So, if having the Length of Service standards is pointless (because PCs aren't really bound by them)... why have them? -- Xerxes 21:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC) * Even RL length-of-service guidelines set up during peacetime can get thrown out the window in times of war, which has been the constant state for the Alliance/NR for the past 16 years. It would make some sense if they wanted to post an accelerated timescale for wartime heroes (PCs). --Lolkje 01:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Image Removal Anyone know why the body armour image was removed from this article?